[lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty - "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"

Wed Jan 31 01:32:20 UTC 2018

Thanks for the clarification Alejandro.  Your resolution seems to suggest
disqualifying SO/ACs from selecting RT members. If this is removed from
SO/ACs, it goes to ICANN the organisation, no?  So I extracted the
obligations of ICANN org in what is proposed:

ü  Timely publication of call for volunteers;

ü  Determining the need to extend the call, in case of insufficiently
diverse or skilled pool of applicants;

ü  Assure that each applicant indicates which SO/AC from which they seek
nomination and encourage applicants to familiarize themselves with the work
and leadership of the SO/AC from which they seek nomination

ü  Provide a non-binding assessment of the skillset of each of the
applicants relative to the skills and experiences identified in the call
for volunteers;

ü  Provide each SO/AC with a list of those applicants who have sought their
respective nomination, including all application materials, and the
non-binding skillset assessment;

ü  Coordinate the meeting of SO/AC Chairs for the final selection of the
review team.

The call for volunteers must:

ü  Include a mandatory field for candidate to indicate which of the seven
SO/ACs from which they seek nomination.

ü  Include a Statement of Interest (SOI) to be filled in by every candidate.

ü  Solicit information from applicants regarding their skillset and
experience, relevant to the review.
Set an expectation that a review team member may be asked to execute a
nondisclosure agreement.

I highlighted the duties of ICANN org that is being proposed because even
as I am for diversity and how that is achieved, I'm concerned about a
concentration of power.  Would your proposal not concentrate power
unconditionally in ICANN org?

Best,
-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <
apisan at unam.mx> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the motion addresses what I perceive as a shortcoming of the Operating
> Standards. Community selection, as implemented, is creating a process that
> is too closed and can preclude an open enough composition of review teams.
> This can be at the root of the ongoing difficulties the SSR2 review has
> encountered and thus it can be that the problem presented is not
> hypothetical but something that has already had consequences for ICANN.
>
> I do intend to present a comment in the link indicated, individually, but
> find the matter of enough importance for LACRALO to raise it collectively.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> <+52%2055%204144%204475>
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/
> 22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> ------------------------------
> *Desde:* lac-discuss-en [lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org]
> en nombre de Carlton Samuels [carlton.samuels at gmail.com]
> *Enviado el:* lunes, 29 de enero de 2018 19:43
> *Hasta:* Maritza Y. Aguero Minano
> *CC:* LACRALO discussion list
> *Asunto:* Re: [lac-discuss-en] Motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty -
> "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews"
>
> I think inclusiveness is always laudable and should be a
> consistently-applied principle in promoting multi-stakeholder solutions,
> especially in the governance matters related to the domain name system.
>
> Team member selection is the specific issue referenced by Alejandro's
> motion.  And the consultations now underway for "Operating Standards for
> ICANN-specific Reviews" does have something to say about that.  It suggests
> '*community selection*' as the preferred model.  So maybe what we need is
> a re-definition of '*community*' within the ICANN context.
>
> A couple of questions. Would that presentation of the proposed Operating
> Standards for Review Teams address the issue raised by Alejandro?
>
> And if we think it is inadequate to task, would it not be more helpful if
> responses here give global visibility to the matter?   Have a look:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> *Carlton A Samuels*
>
> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799> Strategy, Planning, Governance,
> Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Maritza Y. Aguero Minano <
> myaguero at msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> As reported in the monthly LACRALO January call, Alejandro Pisanty has
>> presented the following petition:
>>
>>
>>
>> "*ICANN has initiated a public comment on the Guidelines for Reviews on
>> its activities: "Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews":*
>>
>>
>> *https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en> *
>>
>> *MOTION**: LACRALO must request the Board and the SO/AC leadership to
>> review the procedures to integrate the "Review Teams". The result of said
>> review should be the inclusion of RT members as a matter of law without
>> requiring the approval of the SO/AC leadership as a whole. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *RATIONALE**: the current system forms a closed system in which it is
>> not possible to include independent opinieons. The process describes how to
>> hire "independent experts" but this refers exclusively to consultants who
>> will be selected in a similar way. The result of this closed cycle were
>> immediate: the "SSRT2" revision or the second DNS security, stability and
>> resiliency review has been put on hold for not achieving progress, which in
>> my opinion is at least partly due to the closed constitution of the working
>> team.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *STATEMENT OF INTEREST**: I have a detailed knowledge of the process as
>> I was Chair of the Initial SSRT (2010) and had submitted a request to
>> participate in the second team as well, and I also have had discussions
>> with the Board, SSAC and ALAC Chairs, as with other members who are part of
>> those bodies.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *I would be grateful to the Secretariat for attaching a copy of this
>> motion to the documents that will be reviewed this afternoon, as the matter
>> structurally affects the decisions made by the CCWG which led the IANA
>> transition*".
>>
>>
>>
>> In this matter, we would like to start a consensus consultation to
>> approve the motion presented by Alejandro Pisanty.
>>
>>
>>
>> This request for consensus will be made available to the Community for a
>> period of three (03) days counted from Monday, January 29th, 2018 and will
>> end on Thursday, February 1st, 2018, due to the time since the request was
>> made and the importance of the subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the following link you will find the Motion presented by Alejandro
>> Pisanty: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=794
>> 32176
>>
>>
>>
>> This call for consensus is based on paragraph 12.8 of the LACRALO RoP,
>> which will be considered successful in the absence of significant
>> opposition to it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Humberto Carrasco -LACRALO Chair
>>
>>
>> Maritza Agüero – LACRALO Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lac-discuss-en mailing list
>> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20180130/a6854925/attachment-0001.html>